Commonwealth v. Bundy’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
94 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently May 2009 · most notably Commonwealth v. Kichline (1976), Commonwealth v. Goodwin (1975)
94 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chimel v. California · Preston v. United States · United States v. Edwards · Commonwealth v. Paquette
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The mere fact that the seizure of the coat was not contemporaneous with the seizure of the person of the appellant, but rather occurred after he had been removed to the place of detention does not prevent the seizure from being incident to the arrest.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““The necessary feature of nonfelony murder in the first degree is the presence of a willful, premeditated and deliberate intent to kill. In establishing the presence of a specific intent to kill, the Commonwealth is not required to depend upon proof by direct evidence, but may meet its burden by circumstantial evidence alone. ‘The specific intent to kill which is necessary to constitute in a nonfelony murder, murder in the first degree, may be found from a defendant’s words or conduct or from the attendant circumstances together with all reasonable inferences therefrom . . . ’ Commonwealth v. Ahearn, 421 Pa. 311, 318 , 218 A.2d 561, 565 (1966). See also, Commonwealth v. Williams, 455 Pa. 539, 546-47 , 316 A.2d 888 (1970); Commonwealth v. Fostar, 455 Pa. 216, 220-221 , 317 A.2d 188 (1974). The task of an appellate court in reviewing the sufficiency claim is to determine whether, accepting as true all the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom, upon which, if believed, the jury could properly have based its verdict, it is sufficient in law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime or crimes of which he has been convicted. Commonwealth v. Williams, supra; Commonwealth v. Fostar, supra; Commonwealth v. Paquette, 451 Pa. 250 , 301 A.2d 837 (1973); Commonwealth v. Oates, 448 Pa. 486 , 295 A.2d 337 (1972).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.